Dear Mathias, As a man of the cloth, you will know that music has long been able to have a powerful effect on the listener:
"And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand; so Saul was refreshed. And was well, and the evil spirit departed from him." [1, Samuel, 16, 23] One can speculate about the extent of David's self-expression through music, and whether or not this was possible for someone living before the 19th century. The important thing for me, which transcends HIP/ non-HIP considerations, is the effect of the music we play on the listener. After hearing me play the lute in a primary school some years ago, the most disruptive pupil in the class wrote, "When I heard the lute, I felt I wanted to cry." Therein lies the point of what we do. Best wishes, Stewart. -----Original Message----- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Mathias Roesel Sent: 02 July 2011 22:38 To: 'lutelist Net' Subject: [LUTE] Re: What's the point to 'historical sound' > Would you consider Lachrimae as a personal artistic expression of Dowland or > as an example of more general craftsmanship? An expression of his sublime art, certainly. I do resist the notion, however, that Dowland had personally fallen in love with queen Elizabeth. On the other hand, I had the opportunity to attend a recital where an American soprano sang this song and moved me to tears. I happened to make her acquaintance and came to know that she was endlessly sad because her husband had to live in the US while she was trying to settle in Europe. I won't go more into the details, think you'll get the idea. > Maybe Francesco, > Dowland or Weiss didn't feel about their art as we today imagine Beethoven felt > about his art, but does that make their art less of a personal expression? Okay, probably I have misunderstood what to you is a personal expression. To me it is expressing your own true emotions and feelings towards others. That is difficult business if there is no appropriate musical language for doing that. Composers from Beethoven to Wagner and Strauss (to name a few Europeans) invented a musical language so as to express personal feelings explicitly. > in essence there was no difference between Beethoven and earlier composers > like Weiss, Dowland or Francesco. There was a difference in their social role and > stature, the value and regard of their works, but perhaps not in their own > attitude to what must have been their children: ther compositions. We'll never know for sure as they didn't elaborate on this topic (as far as I know). There is an anecdote about Chopin that I read somewhere. When Chopin came to Paris, he heard a local pianist playing music by Chopin. Chopin is said to have been startled as that pianist was playing the music so emotionally .... > > But taking pieces of lute music as > > expressing personal emotions of their composers > > That could never be the basis of an interpretation. Only as a starting point of > how we would feel what we imagine the composer would have felt. Today's > interpreter is the translator of these feelings. Yes. Take e. g. the Tombeaux for Logy and for Cajetan by Weiss. Very expressive pieces, full of dark minor chords and remote keys. Perhaps we like to take them as personal expressions of grief. Weiss would not have dared, I suppose. > > settings that the music probably was performed in (like royal > > festivities with dances, civic parties etc.) > > How boring: music without emotions but historical setting only. I'm sorry? Festivities and parties without emotions? Without expression of true personal emotions, possibly, but certainly not without emotions! Every little musical phrase expresses gestures which are connected to emotions. That's the thing with any kind of code: If only you're trained to appreciate, you'll be able to enjoy. > For sure, the > programmes I play are full of historical references, I play early music after all, > but to make it into sounding music, the stuff that makes people cry or laugh, I > have to bring in emotions ... . of your own. > > rather than on possible personal > > expressions of the composers. > > .. and what better source of emotions, in a historical setting, can I draw on than > the emotions that the composer is conveying to me through his composition? The composer is conveying? The opposite is true, I think, in that we carry our emotions into what we hear because we always search for meaning. > 'Flow my tears' - what more do I need for inspiration? And that's what makes you an accomplished artist. I'm sure, though, you will perform it differently from E. Karamazov who didn't need more for inspiration as well. > That's the beauty of it: convince yourself and you'll convince your audience. And > if it doesn't work, find another job. ;-) People who are making music for their > audiences only, are entertainers. A good job, and we can learn much from them, > but it needs a different kind of personality. The kind that doesn't mind wearing > feathers' in their caps. Which I don't mind doing when occasion demands, by the > way. Couldn't agree more. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
